Agree with the distaste for Borderlands - i ditched the first one out of a combination of frustration and boredom (the map is impossible to read), while I abandoned 2 around the 25 hour mark. I was enjoying it but it started to drag and I availed of a sweet trade in deal.

Okami is one of my favourite games ever made, I own the thing on both PS2 and Wii, and if it were not for me boycotting Capcom this last year and a half, I'd probably buy it on the PS3 as well. It is a slow burner though, the characters and setting kept me hooked long enough for the world and abilities to open up, but i can see why people ditch it early enough.

DarkSpaceDS wrote:
I don't see were people see Zelda in Darksiders. Its a pure God of war clone.

Because, although the combat is more God of War, pretty much everything else is pure Zelda. The dungeon design, the puzzles, even the black bars and general movement is very Zelda. The way you'll start a dungeon, pass things that bar progress, collect an item then come back and use it to pass is very Zelda too.

Same with outside the dungeons in the hub, where you use those items to access new dungeons, some of those items are heavily inspired directly by Zelda, and I think you get life extensions after beating bosses though I'm not 100% sure. So there are lots of similarities in the games structure

DarkSpaceDS wrote:
I don't see were people see Zelda in Darksiders. Its a pure God of war clone.

Pure is stretching it, the core combat mechanics are definitely similar. The block sliding and wall climbing too I guess (only ever played the PSP God of War).

Stuff in common with OoT would be the hub area in the middle of the map, parts of previously explored areas only being accessible after certain loot in dungeons is obtained. The map, compass and dungeon specific treasure copied from OoT (although the health and mana chests are very God of War), boss fights relying on that newly obtained treasure. The crossblade being a boomerang with four arms rather than two but utilised in the same manner as Zelda for solving puzzles/activating switches. The copy of Link's Hookshot. The horse and its five 'boost' bars. Boss fights being part puzzle rather than an all out hack and slash battle. The shards being pretty much the heart containers from Zelda etc

It may not be a straight Zelda clone but there's so much there that is like playing through a reskinned Zelda dungeon. WHilst I can see an argument for Darksiders not being a Zelda clone for the other ideas taken from other games I'd see a view that it has nothing to compare directly with Zelda as rather blinkered.

On the subject of Okami, I remember enjoying the game a lot and thinking it was great. It has lots of things other than the art style to praise. It isn't just long because its long-winded, but because there is a lot of content and to see and play through. A lot of the takes on mythology are charming and funny. It has really some innovative and interesting mechanics. Above all though, I think it is true to say its best assets are all aesthetic - the atmosphere of the story, the graphics, the sound design and my favorite, the soundtrack.

I don't agree that it's a shining masterpiece and one of the best games of that generation, but I can see why it is heralded as such and it doesn't bother me that other people see that. One thing that does bother me though are people who gave up on it early and make the evaluation that it was shite. If you don't like games with long cutscenes and lots of text, play another game. If you were disappointed and gave up, fine. But don't make sweeping statements about the ultimate quality of the game because it wasn't your thing. There is no ultimate law that says all games must give you control as much as possible and have short cut scenes.

So people who played a good chunk of Okami and say they didn't like it because of the combat or they didn't think it was designed as well as the press praised for have a much better case. Tons of great games don't hold many people's attention long enough to get past the first five minutes. No game, no matter how good it is will ever hold the attention of everyone. It makes pretty poor form to say something is over rated because it didn't hold your attention -- that your standards are somehow better than someone else's. That's why I hardly call anything over rated. It's such an asinine mode of thought.

Likewise -- though I will agree that Okami's introduction could be done in a much better fashion -- long introductions that are not very playable are not intrinsically bad things either. I have more disdain for people who have no patience for such things and act like all games must cater to their tastes than I do for those who can't be bothered to pace their long-winded games for the tastes of people who want more hands on action from the start.

What Silent Hill needs more than anything else right now is a wise curator who understands the importance of what was accomplished in those games and can lead the effort to either preserve or expand on it.

Speaking of Silent Hill; I really enjoyed 4. Yes, it wasn't as good as the first three but it doesn't deserve the criticism it got either. I felt the new direction Konami took with it worked, and it was overall a very good horror game.